Menu

Comedians

I have just returned from the Edinburgh Fringe Festival where I spent a few days seeing as much comedy as possible (as well as writing a response to a CFP and proofing a chapter of my thesis – its a 6hr round train trip from MCR, reclaim that time!)

4 shows a day is my absolute limit. I can’t concentrate for any longer than that. The shows I saw were pretty varied, musical comedy, confessional calls to political action, traditional club-style stand-up and character comedy. For me it was a really good way to see a lot of comedy in a short space of time but there were many subtle reminders of just how middle class the festival continues to be. The trip was a living breathing reminder of the importance of the Panic! report by Brook, O’Brien and Taylor (2018).

I stayed in the Edinburgh University halls of residence (which were fine, but a bit further out than where I’d stayed previously – in total I walked 25miles in 3 days and Edinburgh is a good 80% hill). How anyone manages to afford to stay up for the whole month when the cost of accommodation is so high is totally beyond me.

Last night I went along to the launch of the BBC Comedy Caroline Aherne Bursary, a new initiative promising to award £5k and a development opportunity to a ‘Funny Northern Woman’ in memory of the legendary comic. The bursary was launched at the BBC’s offices in MediaCity Salford and was preceded by a ‘Women in Comedy panel’ where several women from across the industry discussed their careers in comedy and tips for new entrants.

Having been researching the UK comedy industry since 2013 I was particularly interested to see how this new initiative was presented to an audience (made up of the ticketed public as part of the Salford Sitcom Showcase events). I should note that none of my criticisms are directed at the panel members themselves, all of whom were talented women with a lot of experience to offer. However, several stark issues were brought home for me both during the panel discussion and the subsequent hasty ‘launch’ of the bursary.

An all white panel. In 2017 this is not acceptable. It is especially relevant to consider when the issue under discussion is about diversifying comedy with ‘new voices’. A panel of 5 cis-gendered white women (and confusingly, considering the subject matter, only one northern voice) does not send out a message of inclusion, it simply perpetuates a situation of privilege. This was compounded by the fact that when all the panel members were asked about their comedy heroes all comics referenced were also white (as were the performers featured on video clips played at the event). What I found astonishing was knowing that the Women in Comedy Festival, an organisation without any core funding which is staffed by volunteers (whom I have been working alongside since 2014), regularly consider this issue and adapts to find ways to be more inclusive across all aspects of diversity. I have witnessed and been involved in these honest and difficult conversations about our responsibility to be inclusive (something the festival’s director Hazel O’Keefe is incredibly passionate about) and for a huge organisation like the BBC to not have considered this is frankly unbelievable. You cannot just replace white men with white women – that is not inclusive and it is certainly not any kind of feminism I recognise. (More a post-feminist denial of the need to collectively challenge structures that continue to exclude and marginalise?)

Complexity of language. The first comment made by the host was that often the panel members (herself included) get invited along to ‘women in’ panels and that often they make the point that they are just ‘people in’ a particular field. This was confusing as the chair was from the BBC, who I’d imagine had control of the name of the event…. so maybe simply give the panel another name rather than starting off on this awkward note? The first question after this statement was ‘which women inspired you to go into comedy?’ – if gender really is irrelevant (I’m not saying it is, but this seemed the position of the chair) then why kick off with a gendered question? This was further complicated by the chair using the term ‘ladies and gentlemen’ and a panel member’s repeated use of the word ‘comedienne’. You cannot make a statement erasing the need to discuss the ways in which systems ‘other’ people (along gendered, racial, classist or ability lines) whilst simultaneously using language that reinforces and maintains difference.

Will this change anything? The timing of this event, in the week after high profile revelations about the BBC’s pay gap across racial, gender and class lines, meant that structural considerations were fresh in my mind when listening to the speakers. Although, of course we must bear in mind that these inequalities exist across all broadcast organisations, and not just those required to publish the data publicly. A question I was left with after the panel was ‘How does this initiative fit with the BBC’s overall strategy to be more inclusive in its comedy output?’. As with the 2014 ‘no more all-male panel shows’ announcement it felt very much like this initiative needed to be connected up to a wider strategy about what happens behind the cameras too. Don’t get me wrong, it is great that a new Northern female voice will be given an opportunity to be heard, but at the same time we have to ask ourselves will this person just be dragged into a faulty system? A system that continues to discriminate along gendered and racial lines? Will this bursary be used to tick a box without making any real tangible change that will impact many more women than just the winner? The bursary was hastily mentioned at the end of the panel with the key advice seeming to be ‘look on the website for how to apply’ and there was no opportunity to publicly ask questions after the bursary was announced.

I didn’t feel as if I could articulate a (non-confrontational) question during the Q&A (which consisted of three comments disguised as questions about pitching to/ approaching commissioners….which is kind of understandable in a way considering the event was supposed to be about launching the bursary). These are just my initial thoughts and I think and feel many other things about this event too – I will find a way to articulate the complexity of this experience and the initiative within my research. My concern is that small one-off initiatives and awards from large organisations are used to distract from much more complex and challenging structural issues which need addressing.

I get to use the best of all phrases in my PhD thesis now… the textbook ‘as I have argued elsewhere’. Exciting times.

The article evolved from a conference presentation I gave way back in 2014 at the University of Hull and centres around the argument that 2013, although notable for its many high profile successes for female comics, was not the ‘FINALLY THE WOMEN HAVE ARRIVED’ all-out party the media seemed to think it was. In terms of the party metaphor, it wasn’t really even time to open the buffet. In fact just as with every advancement for women into areas of labour outside the home, there was a swift inverse reaction, this time played out through reactionary and sexist humour.

I’m in the process of finishing the draft of my follow up article which will explore uses of self-deprecation in stand-up comedy. I was in total lock down over the Xmas period finishing the thesis chapter upon which this article will be based and am now counting the seconds until the end of term so I can get a day off.

Oh yeah and I have also recently co-founded a research network (Mixed Bill) – more on that here.

In other news…..

A random recent moment was the sudden posting of this image to social media by a fellow student of my high school (a school that has subsequently had both a name change and a complete facelift… as if in a kind of witness protection programme for buildings). The classic Sixth Form leaving book activity of ‘Person most likely’ – decorated with some pretty flipping snazzy clip art.

I had a vague memory of this… but there it was again in black and white. Five words that drive at the very heart of everything that, as an adult, regularly and completely does my head in.

FEMALE. VERSION. OF. PAUL. MERTON

This was the early 2000s (equality was achieved by then right, guys – *eye roll*) and 18 year old me didn’t really think twice about this – fast forward 3 years and this would have not stood for a second. At university I learnt that I’m not the female version of anything, thanks very much. I’m not some kind of rubbish tribute act to a guy who’s funny on TV.

I’ll be tackling this kind of subtle reinforcing of gendered expectation in the introduction to my research – as this really gets to the crux of why I am interested my area. The enduring need for society to define people in binary and to give women power or station only in its relation to their male counterparts. This renegotiation of gendered expectations constantly plays out through humour… another thing for the introduction to the thesis then.

Oh and my bestie Amy is kick-ass CBT therapist, not an interior designer – so take that The Man!

Last week I headed up to the Edinburgh Fringe Festival as part of my research to see some funny women in action. As is traditional all of the weathers were happening as illustrated in the image below.

What is particularly great about Fringe for me as a researcher is the opportunity to see so many varied performances in such a short space of time. As I have just started putting together the brochure for the UK Women in Comedy Festival (taking place in Manchester 20th-30th October – more info here) I could work out who I would be able to see on my home turf later in the year and prioritise accordingly. Nothing beats experiencing the Fringe first hand and even between shows I picked up a lot of useful information and did some really helpful thinking about how this festival is directly linked to my subject of study.

Fringe-specific things of note for me:

The competition – There is an overwhelming amount of shows happening simultaneously so it is interesting to see how different things effect the decisions made by audiences – weather, location, art-form, shows scheduled time in relation to other shows, cost (we were there during the 2 for 1 days at the start of the festival) and…..

Critical commentary – The role of reviewers, bloggers and journalists in informing the decisions of the audiences is an interesting thing to consider (Sam Friedman’s work Comedy and Distinction: The Cultural Currency of a ‘Good’ Sense of Humour (2014), remains highly relevant here). The journalism around the Fringe clearly impacts in different ways to how touring comedy is reviewed, and can be a stressful aspect of the Fringe for acts. How does getting a great review impact on the expectations the audience have for a show? Conversely how does getting an awful review impact on attendance? How do the reviews that the acts get in Edinburgh inform the audiences that they may attract when on tour? These questions definitely feed in to my own work.

Flyers – I accepted every flyer handed my way with the view to seeing how in this highly competitive environment acts promote their work. How do you get the audiences attention in this environment and are do themes emerge in the way artists promote themselves? For me a key consideration is how the language of empowerment or equality may be evoked as part of the marketing of a show by a female performer (and critically how this sits with ideas of post-feminism and the current cultural context for women).

Social media and the Edinburgh Bubble – From social media it was clear that the focus during August is all things festival. Even those not performing at the Fringe were tweeting about it – either to recommend other acts, lament the fact they weren’t there or commenting on the journalism surrounding the festival. The last of these points directly relates to a tweet by comedian Sara Pascoe, who, whilst not performing at this year’s festival, publicly challenged the way journalists repeatedly ‘make a thing’ of the rise in the number of female performers by writing articles about women and comedy. She argued that the only time the ‘women aren’t funny myth’ is wheeled out is as part of a defence of women in comedy. She comments that “we [female comedians] are not a sub-culture and talking about us as if we are plays a huge part in reinforcing that comedy is ‘A Man’s Job’ and we’re novelties.”. This was obviously interesting to me as someone investigating this area, especially as I am acutely aware of how much of the writing on this subject (predominantly but not exclusively journalistic rather than academic) perpetuates a divide in humour along gendered lines. A timely reminder then that when writing on a subject it is all too easy to replicate internalised inequalities and inadvertently reinforce rather than challenge stereotypes. Pascoe is definitely not the only performer on the circuit with this view point. As part of my interviews I have encountered similar attitudes, and this is something I wish to explore further in my research.

Apart from this trip being useful in terms of experiencing the environment of Edinburgh I also tried to see as much as I could. Some plans fell by the wayside due to the bad weather, my inability to leave enough time to get to venues and general tiredness. We also took in some other Edinburgh cultural activities including the Museum of Scotland, The Scottish National Gallery, The Scottish National Portrait Gallery (specifically the Facing The World exhibition of self-portraits), and trekked about looking for record and books shops. I also had chance to catch up with a friend who I’d not seen in ages and was coincidentally sat behind me for David O’Doherty – hooray for the Edinburgh Bubble and Sam Freeman’s aggressive coffee shop table defending tactics!

One of the major draws of a conference like this is the chance to explore the diversity of approaches taken to humour and engage with people from such a wide range of disciplines. I expected many of the papers to be way out of my comfort zone but actually that was part of the fun. A reminder of just how much there is out there that you know nothing about is liberating – I am consciously incompetent of even more things than before.

Day one kicked off with James Williams discussing a Deleuzian critique of existing theories of humour (incl. Critchley and Freud). Although this felt a bit less like being thrown in at the deep end and more pushed into the shark tank at an aquarium, this presentation has enabled me to find a more definite articulation of one of the key aspects of my methodology. Although I am sure Williams’ presentation, which was discussing ‘Process Philosophy – How does critique operate when everything is connected?’ had much greater significance for others in attendance, I found what I did grasp illuminating and useful.

It reinforced for me why I have always been frustrated by a content analysis approach to comedy research. My decision to go beyond straightforward content analysis in my own methodology is precisely because by objectifying the humour (making it fixed and reducing it to words so it can be analysed) you remove the context, the before and after, and attempting to remove it from this context is unhelpful and naïve. As Williams put it (according to my hastily scribbled notes) we should be considering the multiplicity of these disruptive events of humour, getting beyond the binary found in the likes of Critchley and Freud (where only two different series are at play, the ‘norm’ and the ‘disruptive’, in terms of incongruity).

So basically the first keynote had me questioning my own existence. I can actually still feel my brain thinking. I’m not a fixed thing, I am a process and I am becoming. Mind blown.

Other highlights included Dr Shaun May’s discussion of the neurodiveristy movement’s use of humour in highlighting the flaws in neurotypical pathologising of autism and Asperger’s, and Dr Rosie White’s paper on the work of Kathy Burke in queering understandings of femininity. Having been inspired by Rosie’s work on Lizzie and Sarah (a TV comedy created by Jessica Hynes and Julia Davis) and her arguments about the presentation of feminist messages within it, it was great to see her present in person. All attendees also got the chance to have a peek through the current exhibition of comic art as part of the Uni’s Stand-Up Comedy Archive.

Another key aspect of attending this event was the opportunity to meet with other comedy researchers. I was lucky enough to be able to spend time talking through things with Kate Fox (based at University of Leeds) whose own practice-based research is exploring a similar theme to my own (decidedly non-practice-based) research. The opportunity to talk to other comedy researchers is invaluable. The chance to be challenged and reassured is helpful when, as a PhD student, you spend so much time fighting the fight solo. Kate is also conducting qualitative interviews and so discussing the complexities of the ethical aspects of this, and how this will fit alongside the analysis we are both conducting, made me feel a million times more energised for what is left to achieve.

So, all in all, a really engaging and worthwhile event for me. One that I am still processing.

A few weeks ago I was invited to host a table discussion on stand-up comedy at York Literature Festival. It was at late notice but no-one had dropped out or been injured so I gladly accepted. I also ensured it was crystal clear that I was a comedy researcher, not a comedian, to make sure it didn’t turn into a stress dream I’ve had – where that mistake has been made and I’m instructed to do a ‘tight five’ rather than discuss my research.

One of the major draws was the fact that it was back at York St John University (the artist formerly known as York St John College), which I attended as an undergraduate. The chance to swan about the campus I’d left ten years earlier made it an easy decision. Three comedians (also with YSJ connections) performed their material and then post-interval I chaired the discussion about their work, and due to it being a literature festival, their writing.

On the night it was illuminating to see how different everyone’s writing approach was. A significant part of my research has been interviewing stand-up comics and promoters but most of the conversations have centred on the performative aspects of comedy rather than the writing side of things. For the Q&A (or “table discussion” which sounds odd as there was clearly no table… see the above table-less image) I had to make a conscious effort to bring it round to the writing side of things and ask questions that, even though I suspected the answers, might be of interest to the literary audience. In several instances I had to play devil’s advocate (an all round emphatic and predictable group “no” to the question “Can you tell from the page what will work in the performance?” provides an example here).

Overall it was a really enjoyable experience, a chance to see a diverse range of approaches and to discuss the process of page to stage. Talking to the comics Richard Massara, Geneva Rust-Orta and Seb Bloomfield about their work got me thinking about how I would respond if anyone ever asked me how I write (without simply shrugging or making the comment “solely by the grace of spellcheck go I”).

Their ability to talk eloquently about how they do what they do made me think about how I would cope if a poor-man’s Kirsty Walk was asking me the questions, rather than the other way round (not as well as they did I suspect). This event just happened to fall in the week when I was both giving tutorials to a group of students on writing their assignments and also marking the work of 35 other students (a loooong week).

I can pretty much boil my hintz and tipz (the z’s disguise the tedium of the following list) down to the following. These were the best tips people have given me over the years and thank the lord they did because they are gold.

Break it down: Often students flip out over the word count – ‘How will I write 1,000/2,000/4,000 words on X or Y?’. The answer here is really that you need to think about writing a smaller amount of words on sub points or chapters that answer the overall question. A blank piece of paper is terrifying so start with a good old fashioned list of things you’ll cover and go from there. When these smaller points are put together, they build up to the word count. This is the only way I can conceive of writing the 80,000-100,000 word thesis I’ll be cracking out for my Ph.D. When looking at the question think the following; How can I break this down? What are the points I need to cover to answer this question? Then make a list of the points you want to make and allocate a word count to each section – then kill them off one by one like a sniper.

Read it out: I am a product of my time. Without technology and the advent of spellcheck there is just no way I would have any of my current qualifications. However spellcheck is both friend and foe. Autocorrect often swoops on in there to deal with a badly spelt word, replacing it with a completely different word. Not just the their/there/they’re conundrum but a whole host of other words are waiting out there to be messed with by spellcheck’s warped sense of humour – my greatest ‘frienemy’ (it didn’t like that at all). The only way to catch these ‘wrong words’, to check it flows AND (crucially) that it makes sense is to READ IT OUT LOUD. Yes you will sound cray cray but it is worth it.

Put down the breadcrumbs: One of the things that seems to stump people between A-Level and undergraduate level is referencing. They’ve not done it before and it seems super intimidating. Eventually we all get used to it and reference on autopilot but by far the best approach, even when you have cracked it, is to reference as you go along. Referencing not only ensures you aren’t plagiarising other people’s work, but it also means that your readers (and your marker) can follow the trail of academic breadcrumbs back to where these ideas originate – from the witch’s gingerbread house of your essay, back via the breadcrumbs to the woodcutters cottage where the original ideas live. (In this metaphor there are no birds following behind you eating said breadcrumbs – for the Hansle and Gretle purists out there). If you leave referencing until the end it is a huge pain and much harder to get right than if you do it incrementally whilst you go along.

I am not an expert on writing and I don’t find writing easy AT ALL but these tips are what I swear by and if they also help someone else out then great. Now I just need to follow them and crack on with writing my research up.

I spend a lot of time talking about comedy panel shows. I’ll be giving a lecture on them in a few weeks time to my very lucky second year students. Part of my research has been to discuss this very topic (amongst other things) with stand-up comedians and comedy audiences to understand the role these programmes play in the wider U.K comedy industry.

There has been huge amount of media coverage about lack of diversity on panel shows in the wake of the BBC’s announcement in 2014 that it would include more women in its comedy programming (see here). This came about because the BBC Trust identified that the comedy output (especially panel shows) were overwhelmingly male. There are obvious failings on many levels of diversity in lots of aspects of public life, but in this instance the BBC were focused on lack of gender parity, and the (then) Director of Television Danny Cohen pledged publicly to put an end to all-male panel shows (in an interview with The Observer, see here). This announcement garnered a significant level of attention in the media with even Newsnight covering it (with Paxman patronisingly referring to the assembled panel of commentators on the subject as ‘testicle free’).

Often some of the sticking points in my conversations with interviewees is what exactly will be different if we include more women in these formats. Will the comedy change? (the idea that female comedians make jokes solely for women still casts its long shadow over any discussions of this nature) How will these formats accommodate women? Will any woman do, or does the fact they are a comedian make a difference? I feel very strongly about the latter as do many people I speak to – having female comics on the panel shows means that they have the SKILLS to be as funny as the male comedians who are team captains or recurring panellists – add in a female actor, newsreader, journalist etc. and it’s very unlikely they will be hilarious (because their talents are elsewhere), reinforcing the ‘men are funnier than women’ stereotype by default. This is also unnecessary as there are loads of female comics that would be awesome on panel shows (see the megalist of people I’ve seen recently).

But now in 2016 and we might actually be starting to see the outcome of this new policy introduced back in 2014. Insert Name Here, a new BBC2 panel show, has a female host, Sue Perkins (sans Mel) and is clearly making a concerted effort to be more inclusive (although as always these things take time). The show that aired on Monday 25th Jan (at 10pm on BBC2) contained within it something that had me punching the air… Aisling Bea please take a bow!

When marriage was flippantly referred to as the best day of a woman’s life (in this case the life of J.K Rowling) Bea swooped in immediately to call ‘Bullshit!’. (18mins in to the episode which will be found here for a little bit whilst it’s still on iPlayer). Her take down of this was not only funny but made the point that this is exactly the kind of old school patriarchal stuff we don’t even spot any more. Her comment, delivered with an incredulous tone – ‘can I just pick bones with ‘the greatest day for a woman, the day you can legally give yourself over to a man?’ – exposed the way that a lot of comedy plays in to and reinforces traditional norms, especially gendered expectations of people.

She then stuck her tongue out at THE MAN. I actually whooped out loud.

So this is it guys, this is what I mean when I say a diversified outlook on life. No the formats don’t have to change, women are more than capable of being just as aggressive or forthcoming as men on panel shows, and no it doesn’t mean it’ll be less funny – what it means is that alternative viewpoints about life will be considered and broadcast. It will impact positively because the humour will be diversified and more reflective of the diversity of our population (ideally longer term in all aspects of diversity – ethnicity, sexuality, ability, age also). Outdated ideas will be challenged – challenged through comedy, rather than reinforced through comedy – which is so often the default setting for panel shows.

Birthday Girls Party Vibes show 2013 with Women in Comedy Festival crew.

This Friday I am off to see the marvellous Casio keyboard-wielding comedian David O’Doherty. I see a lot of comedy and I’m excited to be seeing his new show, having used my Edinburgh Festival trip strategically to see people I was unfamiliar with.

When I proposed my research area in August 2013 I was already seeing a lot of comedy. This has shifted up a notch over the last few years….since I can now without any qualms call it research. I’m also lucky enough to live in Manchester where the U.K’s Women in Comedy Festival takes place (more on this to come as it deserves more than a passing mention) so my opportunities to see hilarious women have never been greater.

I’m focusing on the live circuit in the U.K and so it’s important for me to see people at different stages of their career, in different venues and on both mixed-gender and women-only line-ups. Context is a vital (and sometimes neglected) factor when discussing comedy and much research falls into the trap of ‘content-only’ – boiling down comedy to words on a page devoid of the context of performance. I’ve been keeping track of all the comics I’ve seen in this time as this helps me form a better understanding of who is working in the context I am discussing.

My plan is to try and keep track of who I am seeing as part of this blog but I thought it might be useful to flag up who I’ve already seen in action. Some of these people I have seen multiple times, in multiple contexts too (from back rooms and basements and work-in-progress shows to arenas).

Note: Records began October 2013 and the following is in alphabetical order because I’ve put this info in a spreadsheet (of course I have)…….. I’ve been busy that’s all I’m saying.